[–] [deleted] 3 points 108 points (+111|-3) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 31 points (+31|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 42 points (+42|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
23

[–] FlanFrog 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

Here you go: Measuring Rates of Return for Lobbying Expenditures: An Empirical Case Study of Tax Breaks for Multinational Corporations. The study was done in 2009 and the ROI found was 22,000%. The researchers were so shocked that they recalculated the data twenty times in order to be sure there weren't any errors.

0
0

[–] markrod420 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Based on these figures its actually 100,000%

0
11

[–] Mr_Quagmire 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

I am consistently amazed at how relatively inexpensively our government can be bought every time I hear the actual numbers like this. It's just incredible... and scary.

0
0

[–] wwwhistler 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

sometimes i wounder if we shouldn't be growing a lot more bananas............

0
2

[–] Ashlir 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Statism is it's own worst enemy. Centralization just makes it easier to buy the system. Where as decentralization is FAR harder to purchase power over so many people at once.

0
1

[–] Kabuthunk 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

THANK you! It's almost been pissing me off how little I hear people mention that the stock market is just computers trading big numbers for smaller numbers with eachother, and creating imaginary wealth as a result.

I mean holy christ, one look at high-frequency trading...

Oh hey, maybe that means that when I keep posting as such, I won't just be downvoted any more. Well also, this isn't Reddit, so that probably helps too.

1
46

[–] flock-o-turtles 1 points 46 points (+47|-1) ago 

Talk about your welfare queens!

0
11

[–] Morbo 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Totally. Can we start publicly shaming these moochers for their overuse of tax payer funded handouts?

0
5

[–] Broda 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Yes you can, but people are dumb. Most people wont or cant think out of the box and realize shit impacts them.. Even local government is fucked up. A few years ago our judges owned the private probation office's (misdemeanors) they sent people to. We even had a judge that was paralilized in a DUI accident that procided in most of the DUI cases

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Can we start publicly shaming these moochers for their overuse of tax payer funded handouts?

That's the thing, is it reasonable to complain when they take advantage of cuts and handouts which have no stated limits? Would there be any level of corporate welfare that would be reasonable use?

3
6

[–] 404_SLEEP_NOT_FOUND 3 points 6 points (+9|-3) ago  (edited ago)

America, where humiliating the weak is a virtue. The only reason people attack welfare recipients is because they are weak: poor, disabled, mentally challenged. Nobody talks shit about how bad corporate welfare is (except on tinfoil hate internet forums).

1
1

[–] TahTahBur 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

This. Corporate Welfare. /thread

0
0

[–] TreeWithInfiniteCats 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There's no difference. Saying that this isn't okay but Laquisha having six kids on welfare is okay because LOOK AT THIS BAD COMPANY is extremely hypocritical.

Get rid of both.

0
25

[–] Dumbledead 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

As a non-American i've never understood why profit-driven companies are able to give money to your politicians. Of course they're going to get something out of it, that's the nature of the business, they're not doing it for fun. But if they do that has to be corruption by definition. It's a very strange system you have when bribery is legal.

1
12

[–] scorinth 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

The short version is:

  • Corporations have to be legally considered "people" in some way, because a lot of things legally are between people. There was some real concern back in the day that corporations would be unable to own property, enter into contracts, sue, or be sued. The simplest solution was to just say, "Corporations are a special kind of person, so the law affects them like people."

  • Some time later, there were some freedom-of-speech issues that arose when people did things like burning US flags in protest. People said, "The US Constitution protects speech, not actions like these." The US Supreme court ruled that certain actions are basically forms of expression the same way speech is, and so they'd be protected the same way speech is.

  • Finally, you have the "money in politics" thing. This is the one my memory is the most hazy about, but basically, it boils down to this: If two candidates go through town, and you want to give money to one to help their election campaign, can you? Or more to the point, can people stop you? Well, the Supreme Court once again stepped in and said that giving money to a campaign to buy an advertizement is similar to you buying that advertisement yourself, so it fits into that category of "actions that are legally the same as speech" and so you can't be stopped from doing it.

  • So, hey, you can give money to the candidate you like. But, whoops, go back to the first one - since corporations have the legal rights as people, hey, they can, too.

Clearly something odd has happened between the first step and the fourth, but this isn't really a matter of somebody saying an insane thing. It's more like unintended consequences when lots of little decisions come together like that.

1
4

[–] TexasComments 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Now as to why corporations are people: On the most basic level they pay taxes and as such they ought have the right to have concerns heard. Beyond that, Corporate Personhood began when the state of New Hampshire took the private property of Dartmouth including their campus, their ability to elect their own board of trustees by appointing a board of visitors to oversee the board of trustees. Now they were and are still a private college and this is the birth of Private Corporation's rights. Now, this is also a lead into the fourteenth amendment's incorporation of protection for property and all other rights.

"Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." The principal of the argument is that a corporation is a collection of individuals joining together to advocate for a common goal [501(c)3 or 501(c)4] or towards creation [for profit] of a product or service. The corporation expressing its views are the people of the corporation expressing their views - often on issues related directly to the business.

0
6

[–] Idunsums 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. No wait you really think this only happens in America?

0
1

[–] PM_ME_EXPERIMENTS 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Upvoat.

0
2

[–] Kabuthunk 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This has been going on for a very, very long time. There's a reason the Roman Catholic Church is the wealthiest organization on Earth.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Where are you from? Because I'd be amazed if they don't do it where you live too.

1
21

[–] CommonSense 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago 

And yet, people support political candidates who would expand the power of government. I really don't get it.

7
18

[–] Dumbledead 7 points 18 points (+25|-7) ago 

So your solution to corporate corruption is... less regulation?

4
22

[–] BoiseNTheHood 4 points 22 points (+26|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Given that regulatory capture is a major part of what people complain about in regards to corporatism and money in politics, yes, that is the solution. It's either that or extreme "solutions" like banning corporations or revoking most of the First Amendment that would create even worse problems.

What people don't understand is that large corporations secretly love government regulations. They serve as a government-sanctioned shield against free-market competition. In doing so, they prop up entrenched monopolies/oligopolies in the market.

1
13

[–] CommonSense 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The problem isn't corporate corruption. The problem is government corruption. Remove government's ability to influence the market, and the corporations lose that avenue. As long as it exists, the corporations will take advantage of it. Not because they want to, but because they HAVE to. If they don't, then their competitor (who almost certainly is) will destroy them.

The solution is a free-market. Not this bullshit crony system where government pics the winners and losers.

0
3

[–] PushYourself 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Corporations are empowered by the government. Corporations have huge incentive to lobby, not because of their own corruption, but because of the corruption of the government.

1
3

[–] AberdolfLincler 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

It's not one or the other in reality. You need good regulations, but too much will slow things down unnecessarily. There's a serious problem with polarized opinions in our society, especially considering the solution is often somewhere in the middle.

0
6

[–] Mr_Quagmire 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Please, tell me all of the candidates who would actually reduce the power of the government.

1
12

[–] CommonSense 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Rand Paul, Gary Johnson

Though, I can't say with absolute certainty that anybody would. They are just the two that are running on that platform.

[–] [deleted] 7 points 2 points (+9|-7) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] hels 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Not candidates. It's you and I. Neither redd1t or Voat has anyone talking about true revolution but it's the common folk who can make change happen.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

In the US? Possibly Rand Paul, but I don't really trust any of them. Where I live? None of them. Pretty much all Irish politicians worship the state like some kind of celtic god.

11
11

[–] Mojomatrix 11 points 11 points (+22|-11) ago 

Huffington Post has as much credibility as a Bazooka Joe comic.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 37 points (+39|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
12

[–] BoiseNTheHood 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

The Sunlight Foundation is funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute. So that's not exactly unbiased either. And Soros, who spends millions on influencing the political process every year, whining about money in politics is hilarious.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

True, but I can't think of many publications I'd give much credit nowadays. They've all sold out for clickbait.

1
0

[–] csupertramp 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

<3

2
10

[–] Darmoth 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

This is why big government is a problem. As long as you have government big enough to give out that kinda sweet heart deal, business will always be interested in pursuing them. What other investment has a return like that?

1
2

[–] austenite12 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

You're confusing "big government" with "bought government".

0
0

[–] Darmoth 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Bigger government has more power worth buying, and more bureaucrats willing to sell it to them.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Two opposite ends of the same wheel. Big governments get bought, bought governments vote to become bigger.

3
2

[–] Dumbledead 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

That's a rather unorthodox use of the term "big government", but okay.

0
3

[–] crazylibertarian 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Not really. A lot of people (myself included) don't think the government should have the power to directly meddle in the economy.

0
0

[–] ic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

correlation =/= causation

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This isn't a correlation, it's a causal link. Reducing regulatory power to a smaller and smaller group of individuals then protecting them from competition guarantees that they'll be bought and paid for.

0
0

[–] Darmoth 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Of course not.

0
5

[–] WatDabney 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I just wrote a bit on this broad topic on another thread.

Here's a nutshell outline of government:

Government is essentially a business.

It harvests resources (money and power) from livestock (citizens), then it uses those resources to manufacture products (legislation) and to provide services (enforcement). And, like any other business, it sells its products and services for whatever the market will bear, to whoever can afford to pay it.

0
6

[–] CommonSense 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It's a business with no accountability and a monopoly on violence.

0
2

[–] Dumbledead 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The characterization of services as enforcement is woefully inadequate.

0
0

[–] WatDabney 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'd say that that really is a good broad descriptor of the services that the government provides to its customers. It's only necessary to first understand who its customers really are.

Yes - there are at least two other notable ranges of things that a government provides, but neither one is a "service" in the business sense.

It distributes money to its cronies and patrons - like the Wall Street bailouts - but that's more akin to a kickback scheme, and is generally done much more surreptitiously.

And it provides misnamed "services" to the citizens (and I would presume that that's what you're thinking of), but that's actually overhead. Governments have an interest in furthering the health and well-being of the citizens in the exact same sense, for the exact same reasons, and to about the same degree as a rancher has an interest in furthering the health and well-being of his livestock. But clearly, furthering the health and well-being of the livestock is not an actual "service" of the business - it's a cost of doing business. The difference is that cattle don't have to be fooled into believing otherwise in order to keep them docile and ensure that they'll continue to provide the resources from which their owners profit.

Now - I will admit that I'm not certain that the best term to describe the service a government provides its customers is "enforcement." If nothing else, the term has to stretch a bit to encompass the "enforcement" of the desires of its customers upon foreign governments and their citizens, but it's really the same basic thing, just implemented a bit differently, so it'll work unless/until I find a better one.

0
4

[–] totes-mah-voats 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Yet another reason why we must slash our budget and downsize the federal government. Give power back to the people on the local and state level.

0
4

[–] Echo_of_Savages 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Corporations will just bribe local representatives then

0
2

[–] Avnomke 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Bribing 50 people is a lot more expensive than bribing 1 person.

0
2

[–] totes-mah-voats 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's about incentives. States will have a lot more trouble scrounging together $4.4 trillion dollars than the entire country combined. Sure, corporations will behave like all rational actors -- like all individuals -- and work towards their self-interest. Part of the beauty of federalism is that when powers are dispersed, the negative impacts are also dispersed.

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Corporations will just bribe local representatives then

You're a hundred percent correct. Replacing big government with small government isn't much use unless it's also exposed to competition. That said, it's much easier to mobilise a small community against a corrupt leader. Their corruption is also usually much more obvious.

0
1

[–] Superking 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

For a lot cheaper too.

1
1

[–] austenite12 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Or maybe just get the fucking bribe money out of the equation?

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

And how do you propose to do that exactly?

load more comments ▼ (34 remaining)